Mayer v. City Of San Jose

Background

Thomas Mayer alleged that the City of San Jose discriminated against him because of his physical disabilities at San Jose City Hall Plaza. Mayer uses a power wheelchair and attends public protests and cultural events as an amateur photographer.

Mayer alleged that he could not access either of two elevated viewing areas. The tiered concrete seating lacked a ramp. The mezzanine, or balcony, could be reached through City Hall, but City Hall was closed during weekend and evening events. When Mayer tried to reach the mezzanine during regular business hours, he alleged that its door was excessively heavy and lacked good leverage. He alleged that, as a result, he was limited to ground-level viewing, where standing people could block his view, or had to position himself next to speakers, causing unwanted attention and embarrassment.

Mayer asserted four claims: a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a claim under California Government Code Section 4450 and following sections, a claim under California Civil Code Section 54 and following sections, and a claim under California Civil Code Section 51. He sought an injunction requiring changes to the Plaza and other facilities, along with damages, costs, and attorney fees.

The City’s Motion

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges whether the complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally valid claim.

The City made three principal arguments: Mayer had not adequately alleged standing for his ADA claim; he had not stated an ADA claim; and the court should decline to hear his state-law claims if the ADA claim was dismissed.

Standing

The court concluded that Mayer adequately alleged standing. Standing requires an injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For an injunction requiring future changes, a plaintiff must also show a likelihood of future injury.

The court held that Mayer adequately alleged that he encountered access barriers and did not receive the same degree of access to the Plaza as people without mobility disabilities. The court also found sufficient Mayer’s allegation that he wanted to continue attending events but was deterred by the lack of access to the mezzanine. The court further held that, because Mayer adequately alleged at least one barrier related to his disability, he could challenge other barriers at the same facility that were related to that disability.

The court also found redressability. Mayer sought an exterior accessible path to the elevated viewing areas, an adjustment to the mezzanine door, and correction of barriers identified during a joint site inspection. The court found no persuasive reason why those changes would not personally benefit Mayer.

Sufficiency of the ADA Claim

Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, denying that person their benefits, or discriminating against that person because of the disability.

The City argued that its compliance with an accessibility standard for assembly areas defeated Mayer’s claim. The court rejected that argument as to the mezzanine because the standard did not apply there. The court also rejected the City’s argument that Mayer’s access to some portions of Plaza events defeated his claim. The court explained that the “viewed in its entirety” program-access standard applies to existing facilities, while City Hall was new construction.

The City further argued that it had no duty to make private protests and cultural events accessible merely because they occurred at the Plaza. The court stated that the ADA’s reference to public-entity “services, programs, or activities” is broad and includes anything a public entity does, focusing on whether the activity is a normal governmental function. The court found that Mayer’s allegations that the City owned and operated City Hall and the Plaza and hosted events there supported a reasonable inference that hosting public gatherings at the Plaza was a normal function of the City.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

Because the court found that Mayer had pleaded a viable ADA claim, it declined the City’s request to stop exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court stated that it would continue exercising that jurisdiction unless circumstances later warranted reconsideration under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Judge Edward J. Davila denied the City’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether Mayer would ultimately prevail on his claims; it allowed the case to continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage.